I've made several deposits and withdrawals in his 2% deposit with no problems.And I've heard from others that they have succesfully withdrawed the money.

Every ponzi does that. If you couldn't successfully withdraw, nobody would deposit. Deposits are the lifeblood of a ponzi. So long as deposits exceed withdrawals, a ponzi schemer will generally continue to process withdrawals to maintan the positive cash flow into his pockets.

Quote

Also he has appeared in public and talked about bitcoins and his plans in the first spanish bitcoin meeting delivering some personal info.

What does that prove? Do you think it's impossible to know a criminal?

Almost every purported investment that claims unusually high returns relative to risk is either misrepresented (the risks are higher or the returns likely lower than claimed) or a ponzi scheme. The way you show that a such purported investment is not a ponzi is to demonstrate that there are actual legitimate investments taking place and that there's a source of funds for the withdrawals that results from profitable investment of the deposits rather than just the deposits themselves.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN

I've made several deposits and withdrawals in his 2% deposit with no problems.And I've heard from others that they have succesfully withdrawed the money.

Every ponzi does that. If you couldn't successfully withdraw, nobody would deposit. Deposits are the lifeblood of a ponzi. So long as deposits exceed withdrawals, a ponzi schemer will generally continue to process withdrawals to maintan the positive cash flow into his pockets.

Quote

Also he has appeared in public and talked about bitcoins and his plans in the first spanish bitcoin meeting delivering some personal info.

What does that prove? Do you think it's impossible to know a criminal?

Almost every purported investment that claims unusually high returns relative to risk is either misrepresented (the risks are higher or the returns likely lower than claimed) or a ponzi scheme. The way you show that a such purported investment is not a ponzi is to demonstrate that there are actual legitimate investments taking place and that there's a source of funds for the withdrawals that results from profitable investment of the deposits rather than just the deposits themselves.

I can't agree with this. I tried to deposit with Vescudero and he only accepted around 1/4 of my offer as deposit. After he increased the total limit, he put a per-deposit limit. You can investigate this using multiple forum accounts and trying to deposit over given limits (not per-deposit, but limit for the whole operation) to various borrowers. Another borrower, chungenhung recently returned all deposits with interest and shut down operation. I'm not sure he's the first one to do that either. How would you explain these phenomena?

I think it's much more complicated than that. Some of these borrowers will turn out to be ponzi schemes, and some won't. Some will still default (BDT for one, even if it doesn't fit your ponzi criteria) just by being a bad investment. And in the end, people will either stop lending, or some auditing system will be put in place (am I too optimistic?). Hell, notme paid out all his pirate pass-through lenders with interest even without getting paid himself, which doesn't fit even my description of reality.

Almost every purported investment that claims unusually high returns relative to risk is either misrepresented (the risks are higher or the returns likely lower than claimed) or a ponzi scheme.

The recent BTC price drop of 40-45% over the weekend is a reminder of the real risk of holding BTC even for the short term. In light of this, maybe the yields of these investments are not that high after all relative to the risk?

I can't agree with this. I tried to deposit with Vescudero and he only accepted around 1/4 of my offer as deposit. After he increased the total limit, he put a per-deposit limit.

Madoff made people jump through hoops to invest with him. This is typical Ponzi behavior.

Quote

Another borrower, chungenhung recently returned all deposits with interest and shut down operation. I'm not sure he's the first one to do that either. How would you explain these phenomena?

I'd say chungenhung was probably investing the funds in a ponzi and managed to cash out before the ponzi he was investing in collapsed. It's also possible he was really an extremely high risk investment that just happened to pan out by sheer luck. I don't know. Do you know? And if you don't know, how can you rationally evaluate the risk? And if you can't rationally evaluate the risk, why invest?

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN

I can't agree with this. I tried to deposit with Vescudero and he only accepted around 1/4 of my offer as deposit. After he increased the total limit, he put a per-deposit limit.

Madoff made people jump through hoops to invest with him. This is typical Ponzi behavior.

In my humble opinion, you are being dismissive because you're convinced that it would be best if everyone stopped investing in these schemes. Although I agree with the sentiment, that approach is hopeless. Regarding Vescudero and others, I don't think decreasing limits and lowering interest is typical Ponzi behavior. It could be a long con, and he could be thinking of expanding after gaining enough trust, but that kind of conviction borders on not being able to do any business with anyone remotely.

I think a lot of people think this way, so I don't see people beginning to withdraw because the scheme could be a Ponzi. One could easily make up a business model to collect money if the goal is to run with a measly 2600 BTC. He could come up with an idea like ASICMINER, run with tens of thousands of BTC and claim identity theft.

Another borrower, chungenhung recently returned all deposits with interest and shut down operation. I'm not sure he's the first one to do that either. How would you explain these phenomena?

I'd say chungenhung was probably investing the funds in a ponzi and managed to cash out before the ponzi he was investing in collapsed. It's also possible he was really an extremely high risk investment that just happened to pan out by sheer luck. I don't know. Do you know? And if you don't know, how can you rationally evaluate the risk? And if you can't rationally evaluate the risk, why invest?

Might be luck, we don't know, though it's less probable by definition. By the way, if we are talking rationality, why return the funds ever? Either way, the funds are returned, so it's more quantitative proof to the contrary. You could even say that notme and chungenhung (and possibly others) have done a bad thing by being honest.

I can't agree with this. I tried to deposit with Vescudero and he only accepted around 1/4 of my offer as deposit. After he increased the total limit, he put a per-deposit limit.

Madoff made people jump through hoops to invest with him. This is typical Ponzi behavior.

In my humble opinion, you are being dismissive because you're convinced that it would be best if everyone stopped investing in these schemes. Although I agree with the sentiment, that approach is hopeless. Regarding Vescudero and others, I don't think decreasing limits and lowering interest is typical Ponzi behavior. It could be a long con, and he could be thinking of expanding after gaining enough trust, but that kind of conviction borders on not being able to do any business with anyone remotely.

I think a lot of people think this way, so I don't see people beginning to withdraw because the scheme could be a Ponzi. One could easily make up a business model to collect money if the goal is to run with a measly 2600 BTC. He could come up with an idea like ASICMINER, run with tens of thousands of BTC and claim identity theft.

Another borrower, chungenhung recently returned all deposits with interest and shut down operation. I'm not sure he's the first one to do that either. How would you explain these phenomena?

I'd say chungenhung was probably investing the funds in a ponzi and managed to cash out before the ponzi he was investing in collapsed. It's also possible he was really an extremely high risk investment that just happened to pan out by sheer luck. I don't know. Do you know? And if you don't know, how can you rationally evaluate the risk? And if you can't rationally evaluate the risk, why invest?

Might be luck, we don't know, though it's less probable by definition. By the way, if we are talking rationality, why return the funds ever? Either way, the funds are returned, so it's more quantitative proof to the contrary. You could even say that notme and chungenhung (and possibly others) have done a bad thing by being honest.

Even after Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford and now pirateat40 you still write rubbish like this? You are a complete idiot. Just give your bitcoins away now, it will save you some time.

In my humble opinion, you are being dismissive because you're convinced that it would be best if everyone stopped investing in these schemes.

Yes, exactly. Legitimate investments don't involve a complete absence of disclosure of what you're investing in, no way to estimate the actual level of risk, and no way to tell whether claimed losses were actually incurred or whether claimed profits were actually legitimate. No honest person should ask for investments on terms only a fool would accept.

We have actually seen offers that were basically: "Give me some money to invest, if I make money, I'll share it with you. Otherwise, you'll have to take my word that I actually lost your money in some kind of actual investment". That was literally all they were saying. And people were actually taking this offer seriously. That shows that this community is massively disconnected from reality.

Quote

Although I agree with the sentiment, that approach is hopeless.

I'm not giving up so easily.

I am an employee of Ripple. Follow me on Twitter @JoelKatz1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

Seriously why do you create new threads and put your name in the title every time ? I find it egotistical and creepy when someone speaks about themselves in the third person all the time.

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

Seriously why do you create new threads and put your name in the title every time ? I find it egotistical and creepy when someone speaks about themselves in the third person all the time.

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

Seriously why do you create new threads and put your name in the title every time ? I find it egotistical and creepy when someone speaks about themselves in the third person all the time.

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

Seriously why do you create new threads and put your name in the title every time ? I find it egotistical and creepy when someone speaks about themselves in the third person all the time.

seriously kids, get fucked on this one. You were all so arrogant to the bitter end.

I'd say the fact that you're still trolling about it, long past the time when anyone can make a deposit or withdrawal on their own proves your own arrogance. Its not like you can 'warn' anyone off. You're just trolling for your own amusement.

Seriously why do you create new threads and put your name in the title every time ? I find it egotistical and creepy when someone speaks about themselves in the third person all the time.

It is difficult to say for sure how many (or few) more weeks the scheme can possibly run, but it seems we are beyond the point where any "investor", except a very small one, could successfully withdraw his entire nominal balance.

Any large withdrawal attempt would now lead to an immediate game over.

I see what you did there, Fud spreading by you is alot easier than Fact spreading by me.

Supporting Micon and the facts around Micon clearly shows you being part of his scammery just as the Micon corner tries to place those who dont bend over for them regarding BTCST except we have no track record of wrong-doing punk.

Obviously, much evidence exists that this is a ponzi scheme [as in exhibits literally each and every characteristic of a ponzi scheme], and the lack of any evidence to counter is sufficient for appropriate branding.

So far, your evidence is an unjustified return and the lack of disclosing trade secrets. What other characteristics? Please, document them. Don't make generic statements, they just repeat whats already been said.

we tried to tell you over 50 pages imsaguy - we all tried to explain it in as much detail as we could - u think we all just got lucky on this one? or did the scam exhibit all the signs the entire time, start to finish, of a classic Ponzi?